Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, a jury instructed Johnson & Johnson to pay $5 million in damages to Patricia, a retired teacher with two children and four grandchildren. One month later, she died, at age 61, of mesothelioma, an aggressive form of cancer caused by asbestos exposure.

Thirty-five-year-old Christina was a preschool teacher studying for her master's degree when she was diagnosed with mesothelioma. In 2019, a jury awarded her $26 million in her case against Johnson & Johnson.

Gail was 36 years old when she collapsed on her kitchen floor. She was diagnosed with mesothelioma and has

undergone six rounds of chemotherapy, radiation, and major surgeries. Two days into her 2019 trial, Johnson & Johnson struck a deal to pay her damages.

These women, all Californians, are just a few of the now over 40,000 women who want Johnson & Johnson to help cover the millions of dollars in medical expenses they have racked up in their fight against cancer caused by asbestos exposure.

Before we knew asbestos caused cancer, men who inhaled asbestos dust in mines and in industries like shipbuilding got mesothelioma cancer. For decades, women who didn't work in those jobs, but were diagnosed with mesothelioma, wondered how they could have been exposed.

Like asbestos, talc is a naturally occurring mineral that must be mined. During that process, talc can be contaminated by asbestos.

The 40,000 women all diagnosed with asbestos-related cancers all used Johnson & Johnson baby powder for decades on their children and on themselves. The main ingredient? Talc.

Johnson & Johnson sold its iconic baby powder for 60 years, despite their own internal documents showing that their executives, scientists, doctors, and lawyers all knew that some bottles were laced with asbestos.

In 1976, Johnson & Johnson assured the FDA that no asbestos was ``detected in any sample'' of talc produced between December 1972 and October 1973. What it didn't say, what it didn't tell the regulator, was that at least three tests by three different labs found asbestos in the powder, in one case at levels reported as ``rather high.''

Internal documents confirm that Johnson & Johnson willfully misled consumers about the safety of its baby powder.

In a memo to managers, a Johnson & Johnson executive explained that the company's policy of countering negative research about the dangers of talc: ``Our current posture with respect to sponsorship of talc safety studies has been to initiate studies only as dictated by confrontation.'' ``The principal advantage for this operating philosophy lies in the fact that we minimize the risk of possible self- generation of scientific data which may be politically or scientifically embarrassing.''

In this 2013 markup of a statement for Johnson & Johnson's website, you can see that Johnson & Johnson's legal team advised the company against claiming that: ``Our talc-based consumer products have always been asbestos free,'' with the comment: ``We cannot say `always.''' They recognized that the company's talc could have been contaminated in earlier times.

Johnson & Johnson built its fortune on its baby powder. The company's net worth is $440 billion, plenty of assets to help the women poisoned by their products.

Three weeks ago, Johnson & Johnson formed a subsidiary called LTL Management. They then dumped all of their asbestos-related liabilities, including those nearly 40,000 lawsuits, into that shell company. Two days later, LTL Management filed for bankruptcy.

This is corporate chicanery, corporate abuse, because Johnson & Johnson only provided that shell company with $2 billion to cover tens of thousands of asbestos-related lawsuits. Two billion dollars is a big number, but Johnson & Johnson knows the real damages they caused. In 2018, the company was ordered to pay $4.69 billion to 22 women and their families who used baby powder. They know they did not put enough money into that entity, and they specifically created it to avoid liability.

Corporations abusing our bankruptcy system is not new. Before I came to Congress, I did extensive research on these kinds of predatory, anti-consumer tactics.

Johnson & Johnson is abusing our legal system to shield its assets. This is an injustice and Congress must act.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairwoman for recognizing me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1170, which will designate the post office located at 1 League in Irvine, California, as the Tuskegee Airman Lieutenant Colonel Robert J. Friend Memorial Post Office Building.

I introduced this bill to honor the legacy of a true Orange County hero, Lieutenant Colonel Robert J. Friend.

Before passing away in June of 2019, Lieutenant Colonel Friend was one of the last surviving Tuskegee Airmen who took to the skies during World War II as the first African American military aviators. The roughly 1,000 Tuskegee Airmen flew 15,000 combat sorties, destroyed 260 enemy aircraft,

and received 150 decorations of the Flying Cross and Legion of Merit, fighting the Nazi Luftwaffe while simultaneously striking a blow against racism back home.

Lieutenant Colonel Friend flew fighter aircraft for nearly 2 years during the war. During his 142 combat missions, he destroyed critical Nazi and Axis power military assets, helping move the U.S. and Allied forces toward victory during the war.

Lieutenant Colonel Friend was the recipient of multiple military awards for valorous service, including the: Distinguished Flying Cross, Presidential Unit Citation, Bronze Star with Flying Cross, three Distinguished Service Medals, and Air Medal. In addition, Lieutenant Colonel Friend and his fellow Tuskegee Airmen were awarded the Congressional Gold Medal in 2007.

Following the war, Lieutenant Colonel Friend studied astrophysics at the Air Force Institute of Technology and business at the University of California, Los Angeles. After retiring from the Air Force in 1971, he worked as a consultant on the development of missile systems and space- station components near our community and his home in Irvine, California.

Lieutenant Colonel Friend is survived by his children: Thelma, Robert, Jr., Michael, Debra, Dana, Karen, and Clara Ann Browning; 18 grandchildren, 32 great-grandchildren, and 14 great-great- grandchildren. His son, Darryl, died in 2002 while on active duty in the military.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the other Members of the California delegation for signing on in support of this bill and ensuring that Lieutenant Colonel Friend's name is memorialized and his legacy lives on for future generations.

Madam Speaker, let me start with a few facts.

One: The Leahy Law prohibits the United States from giving military assistance to foreign security forces that commit gross violations of human rights.

Two: The State Department determines whether there have been gross violations of human rights based in part on information from the Department of Defense.

Three: That process is only as good as the information coming in. Without that information, we don't cut off funding, and taxpayer dollars can go to foreign military units that commit rape, murder, torture, and other gross violations of human rights.

When our servicemembers have information on such abuses, they have an obligation to report it to their chain of command, but that is not technically true for Defense Department contractors. That is a problem. In fact, that is a big problem because contractors are a huge part of our military presence around the world. They make up more than half of DOD personnel in Iraq.

At the end of the war in Afghanistan, they outnumbered U.S. troops 17 to 1. And there have been repeated allegations of contractors who failed to report gross violations of human rights, from sexual abuse of young boys in Afghanistan to the torture of prisoners in Yemen.

In December 2019, Congress required the Pentagon to update the relevant policies and regulations. Section 888 of that year's Defense bill required specific guidance to Defense contractors on reporting gross violations of human rights.

Section 888 said to the Pentagon very simply: Put this duty to report human rights violations in your contracts. Include rules about reporting gross violations of human rights and put them right next to the rules for accounting, for purchasing equipment, and for subcontracting.

How has this been working? Not at all.

And why is that?

It is because the Department of Defense has apparently decided it is better to see no evil and hear no evil when Defense contractors witness gross violations of human rights.

The requirements in section 888 are currently 469 days overdue.

Madam Speaker, 204 days ago, my colleagues wrote to the Pentagon asking for an update; 97 days ago, the Pentagon sent a response that is best described with language that is prohibited on the House floor.

The Pentagon's response provided no updates on time, no procedures for reporting gross violations of human rights, and provided none of the other information required under the law that Congress passed. This is completely unacceptable, and what it suggests is that neither human rights nor Congressional oversight are priorities for the Department of Defense.

I urge Secretary Austin and General Milley to find out what is going on with section 888 of the fiscal year 2020 NDAA and fix whatever problems within their departments have led to this unacceptable delay.

This week, Secretary Austin and General Milley testified under oath that we are going to learn the lessons of the war in Afghanistan. The need for strong, clear procedures for contractors to report gross violations of human rights is one of those lessons. It should be an easy one to learn.

Voting Rights

Ms. PORTER: The right to vote is fundamental. Any threat to any American at the ballot box is a threat to every American's right to representative government.

It is the duty of the Federal Government to protect our Nation's democracy. We need to expand opportunities to vote, especially for young people, people of color, workers with atypical hours, and people with disabilities. We need to crack down on gerrymandering so that voters choose their leaders instead of leaders choosing their voters. We need to modernize voter registration, reform our broken campaign finance system, and prevent election subversion.

This is not a partisan issue. Every American, regardless of who they vote for or whether they even vote, deserves a government that works for them. And that cannot happen when the bedrock of our democracy, the right to vote, is undermined.

In the House, I proudly voted for H.R. 1, the For the People Act, and H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advance Act to safeguard our democracy. But until the President signs democracy protection into law, the work is not done. I will keep fighting for our democracy.

Mr. Speaker, too often, our country fails to get people the mental healthcare they need. This is true for Americans of all ages, and it is particularly acute for our Nation's college students.

They face the hurdles of corporate greed in our healthcare system and stigma against mental health treatment. But they also run into roadblocks with unhelpful or, at times, actively harmful campus policies.

Policymakers need to give students the tools they need to succeed so they can graduate and become leaders in our communities.

I have written legislation, the Student Mental Health Rights Act, that would strengthen mental health policies on college campuses to better protect young people struggling with mental health challenges.

Students have begun a third school year disrupted by COVID-19. They continue to face the challenges of being physically isolated from their peers and navigating remote or hybrid instruction.

The problem is clear: Protecting students' health is urgent and necessary.

Madam Speaker, the climate crisis is a ticking time bomb. The country that figures out how to defuse it will get huge returns on their investments.

That is why our global competitor nations are investing in green energy. They know that the economy that learns how to manufacture in the cleanest way possible will secure thousands of jobs for its workers. These are jobs in manufacturing and also in research, engineering, and education.

In short, the country that best understands green energy today will have the strongest economy tomorrow. That can and should be the United States.

I am proud to represent the scientists at the University of California Irvine who are doing cutting-edge research on fuel cell energy storage, energy conversion, and more. We have to support the work of their peers.

To have a strong, stable, and globally competitive economy, we need green energy. For Orange County, for the United States, and for our planet, we cannot continue to rely on the technology of yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, when I was a law professor at U.C. Irvine, I wrote a 600-page textbook on consumer protection. And luckily for everyone, you do not need to read the book to understand one fundamental truth: Nobody likes to get cheated; not Republicans, not Democrats; not young, not old; not White, not Brown, not Black. Nobody likes to get cheated.

But when consumers do get cheated, the only way they get justice is if they get their money back. The Federal Trade Commission has used its authority under section 13(b) of the FTC Act to return literally billions of dollars to victims of a wide range of scams; everything from telemarketing fraud to companies lying about how their products can be used to prevent or treat COVID.

If a wrongdoer steals from you, it is the FTC's job to put your money back into your pocket. The Consumer Protection and Recovery Act lets the FTC return to doing just that.

Mr. Speaker, 2020 was California's worst fire season on record, and 2021 has the potential to be even worse.

Wildfires damage property, pollute our air, and threaten lives, and we need to take action.

I have been calling for fair pay for Federal firefighters. These brave Americans put their lives on the line to keep our communities safe, and I am glad that the Biden administration recently committed to paying Federal firefighters at least $15 an hour.

As we begin another fire season, we need to strengthen our coordination across levels of government to learn from past disasters. I have introduced legislation to create an independent board to closely examine and report on natural disasters. This will keep families safe and save taxpayers money.

And, of course, we need to tackle a key contributor to worsening fire seasons, the climate crisis.

As we move forward on infrastructure legislation, environmental protection must be a priority.

For the millions of Americans and Californians hurt by wildfires each year, doing nothing is not an option.

Madam Speaker, the Inspector General Independence and Empowerment Act protects our Nation's government watchdogs.

Inspectors general are independent officials responsible for preventing and detecting waste, fraud, and abuse. They safeguard the interests of taxpayers and weed out corruption. We need stronger protections to prevent biased or unqualified acting inspectors general from assuming these vital roles.

I championed such measures in my Accountability for Acting Officials Act, and I am proud to say they are included in the chairwoman's bill. These provisions would forbid dual-hatting, serving as both a political appointee and an acting inspector general at the same agency. This conflict of interest compromises the independence of the inspector general's work.

American taxpayers fund these agencies. They deserve to know that those agencies are working on their behalf. They deserve inspectors general who will fight to protect their dollars and our government's integrity.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the Inspector General Independence and Empowerment Act.

I thank Chair Maloney for her leadership on government integrity, including this important bill.

Madam Speaker, I am here today to champion tax fairness for every American across the country, across parties, and across the aisle. We are here tonight to talk about what does it mean to have a fair tax system.

Since coming to Congress, I have repeatedly heard from my constituents about how the Trump tax bill doubled the taxes they owe due to an arbitrary cap on allowable State and local tax deductions, often called SALT.

In the last year before this arbitrary $10,000 cap was imposed, nearly two in five taxpayers in my district claimed the SALT deduction, and their average deduction was $22,000 per household. They were paying an average of $22,000 in State and local taxes.

Capping the SALT deduction created double taxation on those families, and it penalized millions of middle-class families--Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike--based solely on the State where they live.

It is an unfair Federal tax system to penalize people based solely on their State of residence, yet that is what this arbitrary SALT tax cap does.

Given the rising cost of housing, prescription drugs, college, and childcare, every dollar counts for American families and families in Orange County. This is especially true after a year of financial hardship during which millions of families across the country are struggling to stay afloat.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues across the country and across the aisle to restore the State and local tax deduction to create a fairer tax system for every American.

The basic principle of an income tax is that you are taxed on the money that you have available to purchase things, to purchase goods and services, to invest, to save. You are taxed on that. That is what a progressive system of taxation means.

When you are having taxes taken out of your paycheck, or you owe taxes to your State and local government, you do not have that income left over.

So let's use an example. If someone earns $100,000 and they pay, as is typical in my district, $20,000 in State and local tax, that is not optional. They must pay that $20,000 under the law. What they have left to provide for their family, to save for college, to pay for housing, to do other things, is $80,000. That is the amount of income that the Federal Government should tax.

What the SALT cap does is say to the family earning $100,000: You can only deduct $10,000, a completely arbitrary number.

What that does is say to a family that only has $80,000 left because they had to pay the county, they had to pay the city, they had to pay for fire services and school services. And they pay that money because they are proud of their community and they want our communities to thrive. But then they are taxed as if they have $90,000 available to them, but they don't. They only have $80,000.

So this whole idea of capping the State and local tax deduction is completely contrary to the entire basic theory of an income tax, which is you pay tax on your available income. If you owe money to the State and county government, whether it is for property tax or State or city taxes, you do not have that money left.

In effect, these families are being asked to pay money and find money they do not have relative to their peers in other parts of the country. That is simply an unfair tax system.

That is right. So the State and local tax deduction is really about saying that two families in two different States, trying to support themselves on the identical amount of income, ought to owe the same amount of Federal tax. That is what we are here to champion today.

I am proud to be doing it with colleagues from across the country and across the aisle.

That is right. Because cities and counties depend on the resources from State and local taxes to be able to pay for schools, to do a good job educating every single child, to make investments in roads and bridges, to pay first responders fair wages for putting their lives on the line to protect us.

These are the kinds of policies that progressives champion, and we cannot ask our cities and our States and, most importantly, our fellow Americans to make those kinds of investments on the city, county, village, and local level, and then have the Federal Government treat them unfairly solely because they are trying to do right by each other in their community.

Mr. Speaker, July marks the 75th anniversary of the first U.S. nuclear test in the Marshall Islands, a tragedy that continues today.

Orange County is proud to be home to one of the oldest Marshallese- American communities. But why the Marshallese came to the United States is a disgraceful chapter in our Nation's history. From 1946 to 1958, the United States conducted 67 nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands.

We deceived the Marshallese, using them as guinea pigs to study the effects of radiation. We turned ancestral lands into dumping grounds for nuclear waste.

We still haven't done the bare minimum to make this right. We established a tribunal for compensation but provided less than 10 percent of the money owed. We don't even translate environmental studies into Marshallese.

Our nuclear legacy in the Marshall Islands is at the nexus of President Biden's top priorities: racial justice, healthcare, climate change, U.S. global reputation, and countering China through diplomacy. We must commit across party lines to make this right.

Madam Speaker, I express my gratitude to Chairwoman Waters for allowing me to speak in support of invalidating the predatory true lender rule.

In our home State, the legislature passed an interest rate cap of 36 percent on loans of up to $10,000 about 2 years ago.

Before California Governor Newsom had even signed this bill into law, predatory online lenders began plotting during their shareholder earnings calls to evade the new law through rent-a-bank arrangements. Companies like Speedy Cash and CashNetUSA went so far as to gloat about the California law creating a huge opportunity for them by driving out their competition, subprime title lenders based in California.

Since the founding of the United States, States have chosen to impose their own limits on interest rates that lenders may charge consumers. The Trump administration's true lender rule greenlit these rent-a-bank schemes and, in doing so, undermined the will of Californians who, through the democratic process, chose to prohibit abusive interest rates.

The true lender rule violates our federalist democracy, and it must be invalidated.

Mr. Speaker, equality and justice are core values of this country, yet for Americans with mental illness, the risk of being killed when approached by law enforcement is 16 times higher. An estimated one in four fatal police encounters ends the life of an individual with mental illness.

We are not fulfilling the promise of equality and justice for Americans with mental illnesses and disabilities. That is why I introduced the Mental Health Justice Act, which would create specialized mental health first responder units. If someone is experiencing a mental health crisis, they are better served by a trained mental health professional, not a police officer.

Mental illness is not a crime, and we have to stop treating it like one. Getting the right help to individuals with mental illnesses prevents them from getting tangled up in a system that isn't built to serve their needs.

The Mental Health Justice Act makes our communities healthier and safer, more equal, and more just.

Madam Speaker, I was present and attempted to vote ``yea'' by electronic means. My card did not register and I was unable to record my vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 434.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to the fiscal year 2020 appropriations bill that would increase funding for the court-appointed special advocate, or CASA, and guardian ad litem programs.

In 2017, nine out of every 1,000 American children were victims of abuse or neglect. These experiences have a lasting effect, impacting a child's future in ways that are often not apparent in the days, weeks, or months after the trauma of abuse or neglect occurs. Providing support and advocacy for these children can make an enormous difference in their lives, and that is where the CASA program comes in.

CASA serves abused, neglected, and abandoned children through the recruitment and training of volunteers who advocate on behalf of children in courtrooms and other settings.

Mr. Chair, imagine being a 6-year-old child suffering from parental abuse. Home is not a safe place, and the secret that you, at only 6 years old, carry with you every day prevents you from speaking to your friends and your teachers and keeps you from making friends and building relationships.

Now, Mr. Chair, imagine that a neighbor calls the police after overhearing abuse. You are finally removed from a home that is filled with traumatic memories, but you are now looking at a scary and uncertain future in the foster system, and you will have to face your abuser in court.

That is where the CASA program comes in. They step in to provide a lifeline, a guide, a friend, and an advocate for the child. Every year, more than 85,000 volunteers advocate on behalf of the 260,000 children who experience abuse and neglect. CASA advocates help these children find their voices or even speak for them as they navigate the child welfare system.

CASA of Orange County has worked with more than 7,050 children in the 34 years that the program has served our community, and they have trained nearly 3,500 volunteers.

CASA of Orange County used essential funding to support Malena, an 11-year-old Orange County resident diagnosed with autism. In the 2\1/2\ years that she was in foster care, Malena lived in a group home, a foster home, a nurturing relative placement, and then a group home again. Throughout all of those changes, Malena had one consistent person in her life that she knew she could count on, her court- appointed special advocate.

That CASA was a steady force in attending countless meetings with her team to support and advocate for her needs. But her relationship with her CASA was so much more, teaching her things that she missed in childhood, such as how to tie her shoes, how to count money, how to write her name, and when her birthday was.

At CASA of Orange County and other CASAs across the country, their mantra is ``I am for the child.''

As a mother of three children, I am proud to stand here as an advocate for children in Orange County and across the country who experience abuse and neglect.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to the fiscal year 2020 appropriations bill that would increase funding for sexual assault kit backlogs, helping us to test the hundreds of thousands of untested rape kits across the country.

I have 5 minutes to speak about my amendment today, and during this time, three people in this country will suffer sexual assault.

That works out to every 92 seconds someone is sexually assaulted in our country. Let me repeat that: every 92 seconds. And, in most cases, the perpetrators of these sexual assaults will never be held accountable. According to the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, only 5 out of every 1,000 rapists will end up in prison.

We have an opportunity today to support victims of sexual assault by increasing funding to process the backlog of sexual assault kits that are waiting to be tested across the country. Having the data and information that a sexual assault kit can provide is essential to solving sexual assaults and preventing future assaults.

In my home State of California, there are 13,615 kits untested. We are failing every single one of those 13,615 victims whose rape kit is sitting and waiting for our attention, and we are failing tens of thousands more across the country, including those who will be sexually assaulted by a perpetrator whose DNA will sit untested for a crime already committed.

It costs an average of $1,000 and $1,500 to test a single rape kit. The lack of critical funding needed for these testing kits is the primary factor in the ever-growing backlog of untested kits. In 2016, the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance gave Orange County a nearly $2 million grant to process more than 3,500 unprocessed kits, to investigate and prosecute cases, and to reengage survivors.

My amendment, which increases the funding in this legislation by $1 million, could help test approximately another 1,000 rape kits in California and across the country. The amendment would bring the total funding up to $50 million, which will only provide enough Federal funding for the testing of up to 50,000 kits. While that is enough to give answers to the 13,000 sexual assault victims waiting for analysis and help in California, because of a lack of data nationwide, we don't know exactly how many sexual assault kits are waiting in this country.

This funding likely isn't enough, and we know that. But Congress must do more to ensure that we are supporting the victims of sexual assault in this country. Increasing funding can play an important role, while it is not alone enough.

We need to support our State and local partners in addressing the backlog of rape kits through increased funding, through new policies for kit testing, and through improved training for those in the field.

I hope that this increase in funding helps us continue the conversation and raise more awareness about sexual assault and about the kit backlog.

I hope that survivors of sexual assault know that Members of Congress are fighting for them, and I hope they hear me and believe that this fight for justice won't end with this amendment. We need to support the victims of sexual assault across this country who deserve to have their kits tested, who deserve justice. We can and must do more.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleagues for their support, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of Mr. Michael Nguyen, an American citizen and resident of my home district, California's 45th Congressional District.

Mr. Nguyen left Vietnam in 1975, 44 years ago. The Vietnamese Government arrested Michael last summer, almost a year ago, while he was traveling and visiting elderly relatives. Michael has now been detained in Vietnam for over 11 months.

We still don't know what crime he is alleged to have committed or what, if any, evidence the Vietnamese Government has to justify his detention and his upcoming trial.

My office has asked repeatedly for this information, but we have been told that we won't know these basics until Michael is taken to court later this month. His family won't know these basics until then.

To make matters worse, for the vast majority of these past 11 months, Michael was being detained without formal charges at all. We now know that Michael is being charged for allegedly violating article 109 of the Vietnamese Criminal Code, activities against the government. This is a charge that Vietnamese officials have used in the past for arbitrary arrests.

By all accounts, Michael is a good man. He was an active member of his community and church in Orange County. I have met his family numerous times, and his wife, Helen, was my guest for the State of the Union.

He has four beautiful daughters, all school age, who miss their father very much. He is a dad who makes breakfast for his girls in the morning and was their primary caretaker.

He was a small business owner, and he is an American citizen with no criminal record here in the United States.

He hasn't been able to speak to his family during this entire time, nearly 1 year. Instead, the Vietnamese Government permits only monthly visits by the U.S. State Department. I thank our State Department officials for visiting him, enabling him to hear messages from his loved ones, and working to ensure his health during this long detention.

But that isn't enough. His family is suffering. Michael's wife, Helen, has taken on a second job while acting as a single mom to their four young girls. His daughters have trouble sleeping and focusing at school.

This entire situation is unjust. Michael was held without formal charges for over 9 months, and we still have been presented with no evidence. That is not how an American citizen should be treated abroad. We expect our partners to show respect for human rights and the rule of law.

I am grateful that so many of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, continue to join me in calling on the Vietnamese Government to do what is right. This is not a partisan issue.

Respectfully, I demand that the Vietnamese Government provide Michael with a fair resolution to his case and return him safely to the U.S. and to his family as soon as possible.

I will continue to work to secure Michael's release until he is reunited with his family and brought home to his country, the United States of America.